Quoting the ICR's Jake Hebert:"Scientists recently discovered a large batch of manganese nodules on the floor of the Atlantic Ocean. These metallic pellets provide strong evidence that most seafloor sediments were deposited rapidly, not slowly and gradually over millions of years." How?

Well, Hebert does go on to offer some kind of rationale.

He goes on to state: "Manganese nodules have consistently been observed growing in lakes and man-made reservoirs, as well as on debris fragments from World Wars I and II, at rates hundreds of thousands of times faster than these calculated rates". However, the conditions in these waters are undoubtedly very different to the deep oceans. Has anyone observed the same thing in the deep oceans (probably a difficult undertaking)?

Hebert continues: "Secular scientists argue that perhaps nodules are found in the uppermost sediments because surface-dwelling organisms or bottom ocean currents have recently begun disturbing the sediments so as to prevent nodule burial, thereby allowing them to grow to the sizes we see at the sediment surface [two references provided]. But if "the present is the key to the past," as they claim, why then has such a disturbance of the sediments occurred in only the (relatively) recent past? Why have these disturbances not occurred for many tens of millions of years, so that nodules are found consistently at all depths within the seafloor sediments?"

But if Earth is 4.5 bn years old, why should conditions at the bottom of (today's) deep oceans always have been as they are today (such uniformitarianism would of course make greater sense in a 6,000 year old planet)?

However, the ICR have their own 'explanation': "Nodules are generally absent from the deeper sediments because these sediments were deposited far too rapidly for nodule growth to occur." Why was that? You guessed - because of the receding Genesis Flood (the deep oceans have ALWAYS been underwater and with very high pressures too, but the Bible records floodwaters - 'springs of the deep being broken or bursting forth' - coming from below as well as from above).

But Hebert appears to be trying to have his cake and eat it. After saying: "In the millennia after the Flood, sediment deposition would have eventually slowed to today's "slow and gradual" rates." Yet he then insists - because YECs seldom have enough time at their disposal to come up plausible scientific explanations - "rapid deposition invalidates the extremely old ages that secular scientists have assigned to the seafloor sediments ...". So it 'must' have been 'rapid deposition' of nodules, even though sediment deposition appears to have been 'slow and gradual' throughout recent history?